Bilcon is terribly disappointed, and smells anti-American sentiment in the salty air, because their quarry project was turned down on environmental grounds after 5 years of study while other projects seem to get a fast go ahead, such as a gold mine at Moose River.
We have a suggestion for Bilcon. Instead of asking for $188 Million in compensation why not offer to build a wind farm on Digby Neck? You could team up with Renewable Energy Services Ltd. which is preparing 65 hectares [how many acres is that?] at Point Tupper for 11 turbines . Consider the amount of basalt which might have to dug up and hauled away to install these monsters if you proposed to build some at Whites Point. The environmental assessments would go smoothly and quickly no doubt because this sort of project is so environmentally friendly, isn’t it. It seems the environmental assessment for the Strait wind farm won’t take 5 years-
The turbine pieces are expected to arrive by ship next spring, including more than two dozen massive 82-metre blades.
“We’re currently involved in our environmental review process,” Mr. LeBlanc said. “We have to do a bird count and some other steps, but we hope to have our review prepared for (government) consideration by this spring.” [link]
However we can’t guarantee that the same locals who couldn’t bear to see the precious scenery, and social quaintness, of Digby Neck scarred by a basalt quarry, won’t howl even then. You just have to look at what happened in Scotland.
This lonely land of peat and Presbyterians has been the scene of an epic battle between those desperate to conserve the traditional landscapes and wildlife of the island and those wishing to to erect 176 colossal wind turbines. … “… the ‘naes’ could scent victory in the air when the Scottish Government wrote to the developer, Ameco, saying it was ‘minded to refuse’ planning permission. …
The fate of the Lewis wind farm is far from just a barrage of hot air among island folk. It goes to the heart of Scotland’s attempt to generate 50 per cent of its electricity using renewables, such as hydro, wave or wind power, by 2020.”
Despite this, the Green line-up against the Lewis windfarm has been formidable, and includes Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and the majority of those crofters and villagers who face being confronted by a vista of rotating giants. It is reported that, of the 9,500 public representations to the Scottish Government, a mere 77 were in favour.
“… sitting in an armchair in front of a window that displays the brooding beauty of the peatlands, Finlay Macleod, writer, broadcaster and ardent campaigner against the project, said the wind farm would utterly alter the island landscape.
‘Six huge quarries, 100 miles of road and hundreds of these massive turbines – it would be unrecognisable,’ he said.
The UK wants to develop an unprecedented 33 gigawatts of wind power, mostly offshore, that will, literally, change the face of Britain. 7,000 wind turbines — one every half-mile around the entire coastline — are to be built in a bid to install power capacity that theoretically would be enough for all 25 million homes by 2020. …
However, a closer look at the European “success” story reveals that all is not quite as it seems. Wind seems to be blowing in the mind of the politically correct and those on the recent environmentalist bandwagon but the cost is going to be huge, no companies will plunge into it without massive government subsidies and, if actually built, power reliability will take a nosedive. …
there will be an enormous aesthetic environmental, as well as economic, cost. A cost driven primarily by the belief that man’s carbon emissions are the main cause of the 1 degree or so of global warming the world has experienced over the last century. …
…even wind industry supporters spotted the real flaw in the British plan. Gordon Edge, the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) Director of Economics and Markets, called the government’s plan “piece in the sky.” Edge recognized that private capital investment will not be forthcoming. Dan Lewis of the Economic Research Council added that the British Government was “deluding itself on a grand scale. There will be no race by investors to build offshore wind farms.” These voices recognize that, to date, the taxpayer alone has picked up the wind power tab.
Despite public subsidies to the UK wind industry of over $500 million the government has so far only seen that such a massive investment provided less than half of one percent of the UK’s electricity needs. In August 2007, the BBC’s Radio 4 Costing the Earth program reported that figures proved that government financial incentives were encouraging wind industry firms to cash-in on massive government subsidies and build wind farms on non-viable sites across the mainland. Even in Europe’s windiest country, the winds are just “too variable”, with most turbines consistently under-performing. Having analysed figures submitted to the UK electricity watchdog Ofgem on every farm’s load factor, Engineering Consultant Jim Oswald explained to the BBC, “It’s the power swings that worry us. Over a 20-hour period you can go from almost 100 percent wind output to 20 percent.”
The recommended “load factor” to make a wind farm economically viable and efficient is just over 30 percent. However, many of Britain’s onshore farms have been running at around 20 percent, with some, in urban areas, dropping as low as 9 percent. Oswald believes that an over-reliance on wind power will result both in major power failures across the UK and an increase in electricity bills of up to 50 percent.
Just a few more flies in the ointment…
While nothing comes close to the capriciousness of nature itself, the industry also still suffers from some severe technical difficulties … In August 2007, Germany’s Der Spiegel reported the rising incidence of “mishaps, breakdowns and accidents” associated with ever-larger turbines. When one rotor blade broke away in Oldenburg, northern Germany, leading to an examination of six others, the results proved so alarming that the authorities immediately ordered four to be shut down. The Der Spiegel article noted that manufacturer’s promises that turbines would last for 20 years have proven hollow. German manufacturer’s cannot build turbines fast enough to meet current demand. … Industry insider Jerome à Paris, writing on the Oil Drum: Europe website as recently as December 2007, admitted that the industry is still suffering from “unresolved technical difficulties with some turbine models that have been withdrawn from the market.” Given that turbines are the backbone of the whole industry, this has undoubtedly proven a key deterrent for prospective investors — except prospective governments, apparently.
But what about Denmark?
Much, too, has been written about Denmark’s success as the world’s wind power pioneers. But the regularly repeated claim that Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind sources is highly misleading. That 20 percent of Denmark’s electricity is not supplied continuously from wind power. Such is the variability of supply that it relies heavily on the proximity of near neighbors Norway and Sweden to take their excess capacity. In 2003 its export figure for wind power electricity production was as low as 84 percent as Denmark found it could not absorb its own highly variable wind output capacity into its domestic system. The scale of public subsidy in Denmark was such that it in 2006/7 it came increasingly under severe scrutiny in the Danish media from headlines claiming it was out of control. [link to full article]
Well, Canadians are used to that. Just think of the gun registry.
But on second thought perhaps Bilcon better sue for that $188 million after all.
Filed under: Atlantic, Business, Climate, Environment, International, Provincial
